THE EFFECT OF INTER FIRM
KNOWLEDGE SHARING ON SUPPLY
CHAIN AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: A
CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROPOSAL Huseyin INCE
Murat ÇEMBERCI
Gebze Institute of Technology, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Inter-firm knowledge sharing (IKS) is identified as a significant predictor of positive performance in
business relationships. On the premise that the effects of IKS have not been given the deserved schol-
arly attention in the SC supply chain context, this paper investigates the effects of IKS on sSupply
cChain pPerformance (SCP) and fFirm pPerformance (FP). The hypothesized model is operational-
ised with survey data and analyzed using regression analysis. The findings add credence to the posi-
tive effects of IKS inter-firm knowledge sharing and identify IKS inter-firm knowledge sharing and
supply chain performanceSCP as antecedents to higher FP firm performance in the SCsupply chain.
Keywords:: Inter-firm knowledge sharing, sSupply chain performance, fFirm performance.e
Introduction
As competition in the 1990s intensified and markets became global, so did the challenges associated
with getting a product and service to the right place at the right time at the lowest cost. Organizations
began to realize that it is not enough to improve efficiencies within an organization. Instead, , but their
entirewhole supply chain (SC) hads to be made competitive. The Uunderstanding and practicing sup-
ply chain management (of SCM) has become an essential prerequisite for staying competitive in the
global race and for enhancing profitably (Li &and Lin, 2006).
Improving inter-organizational coordination and product quality, manufacturing firms often demand
that their SC partners such as subcontractors or suppliers implement common processes, which often
requires sharing process knowledge. Inter-organizational knowledge sharing within a SC has thus be-
come a common practice, because it enhances the competitive advantage of the SC as a whole (Cheng
et al., 2008).
Information sharing is a key ingredient for any SCM system. For example, mMany researchers have
suggested that the key to athe seamless SC is making available undistorted and up-to-date marketing
data available at every node within the SC. By taking the data available and sharing it with other par-
ties within the SC, an organization can speed uacceleratep the flow of information flow in the SC,
improve the chain‟s efficiency and effectiveness of the SC, and respond to customers‟ changing needs
more quicklyer. ITherefore, information sharing, therefore, will bring the organization competitive
advantages to the organization in the long run (Li &and Lin, 2006).
The advantage of information sharing in SCM has been intensively discussed intensively. Information
sharing improves coordination between SC processes to enable the material flow and reduces inven-
tory costs. Information sharing leads to high levels of SC integration by enabling organizations to
make dependable deliveriesy and introduce products to the market quickly. Quality information shar-
ing also contributes positively to customer satisfaction and partnership quality. Thus, iInformation
sharing impacts the SCP in terms of both total cost and service level (Zhao et al., 2002).
Lin et al. (2002) suggested that athe higher level of information sharing is associated with the lower
total costs, a the higher order fulfillment rate, and athe shorter order cycle time. While information
sharing is important, the significance of its impact on the performance of a SC depends on what the
type of information is shared, when and how it is shared, and with whom. The lLiterature is replete
with examples of the dysfunctional effects of inaccurate/delayed information, particularly as informa-
tion moves along the SC. Divergent interests and opportunistic behavior of SC partners, as well asnd
50 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
informational asymmetries across the supply chain SC affect the quality of information (Feldmann
&and Mrller, 2003).
It has been suggested that organizations will deliberately distort information that can potentially reach
not only their competitors, but also their own suppliers and customers. It appears, therefore, that there
is a built-in reluctance within organizations become reluctant to give away more than the minimal
information necessary because disclosing since information disclosure is perceived as a loss of power.
and Ccompanies fear that information may leak to potential rivals. To facilitate quality information
sharing across SCs, an understanding of the factors influencing information sharing is needed so that a
strategy canmay be developed to overcome the barriers that preventing information sharing and en-
courage seamless information flow in SCs (Li &and Lin, 2006).
Previous studies have addressed the importance of certain factors in information sharing and informa-
tion quality in SCM supply chain management, but few studies have considered simultaneously the
impact of intra-organizational factors, and inter-organizational factors on information sharing and in
the context of SCM. To fill this gap, this studypaper first identifies a set of factors, including IKS
(exchange of information, joint -sense- making, and knowledge integration), SCP (with customers,
intra-functions and inter-organization), FP, and inter-organizational relationships (information sharing
in SC partners) that may impact information sharing in SCM and FP. Then, it investigates the effects
of IKS on SCM and FP.
The next section will reports a literature review of the literature that defines the variables under inves-
tigation. This is followed by the conceptual model and a discussion on the developingment of the re-
search hypotheses. Following this, the methodology for the empirical part of the study and its imple-
mentation will be described before analyzing the results. Finally, this paper concludes withthere will
be a discussion of the theoretical, research, and managerial implications of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study investigates the effects of IKS on SCP and FP. A review of related literature was under-
taken with the primary focus ofon defining there research variables andas well as their the conceptual-
ized relationships between them.
Inter-firm Knowledge Sharing in Supply Chain Information sharing refers to the extent to which critical and proprietary information is communicated
to one‟'s SC partners (Monczka et al., 1998). Many researchers have emphasized the importance of
information sharing in SCM practice. Lalonde (1998), in fact, considereds sharing of information as
one of five building blocks that characterize a solid SC relationship.
According to Stein and Sweat (1998), SC partners who exchange information regularly are able to
work as a single entity. Together, they can understand the needs of the end customer better; and
hence, they can respond to market changes more quicklyer. Moreover, Yu et al. (2001) pointed out
that the negative impact of the bullwhip effect on a SC can be reduced or eliminated by sharing infor-
mation with trading partners.
The empirical findings of Childhouse and Towill (2003) revealed that simplified material flow, in-
cluding streamlining and making highly visible all information flowing throughout the chain, is the
key to an integrated and effective SC.
Selnes and Sallis (2003) defineds IKS as “a joint activity between a supplier and a customer in which
the two parties share information, which is then jointly interpreted into a shared relation-domain-
specific memory that changes the range or likelihood of potential relation-domain-specific behav-
ior” (p. xxx80). It is thus a process thato improves future behavior in a relationship. IKS is conceptual-
ized as a joint activity in which the two firms strive to create more value together than they would
create individually or with other partners. It is treated as a multi-dimensional construct with multiple
facets, that includinge information sharing, joint sense- making, and integrating knowledge integra-
tion (Cheung, 2005).
Exchange of Information
Information sharing between the two parties in a customer-supplier relationship is a starting point and
a necessary element of relationship learning. Research related to customer-supplier relationships has
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 51
identified information sharing as a central element of working relationships. Anderson and Narus
(1990) and Cannon and Perreault (1999) both discussed how two organizations must exchange infor-
mation to coordinate and plan the working relationship, and thereby achievinge operational effi-
ciency. Biong and Selnes (1996) related exchanginge of operative information to the tasks of a sales-
person in ongoing relationships. In addition to the ongoing management of relationships, information
sharing might also affect learning in the relationship. One of the respondents in the Cheung‟s (2005)
field interviews commented,: “"Mostly, we learn through communication. This is exactly the point we
are trying to make with our customers. We want them to refer to us when they are developing new
products or if they are making changes. We are trying to find contact points, regional and worldwide,
who will work with us. This is something we are really working with, that is, to gain a mutual under-
standing with our customers for how we operate” "(Cheung 2005p. 80xxx).
Joint -Sense- Making
Dialogue within the relationship constitutes a relationship-specific element of interpretation or sense
making (i.e., developing knowledge development) of the shared information. Fiol and Lyles (1985)
linked interpretation closely with organizational learning when they defined learning as “"[t]he devel-
opment of insight, knowledge, and associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those ac-
tions, and future actions” (p.. 80xxx).." Because organizations vary in the ways they make sense of
the same information, there likely are differences in the mechanisms involved in making sense of that
information are likely to emerge. It follows that some of the information acquired might be rejected,
not because it is unimportant, but because the organization lacks the ability (i.e., the knowledge) to
make sense of it. Organizations employ several mechanisms to make sense of information, Ffor exam-
ple, they conduct board meetings, coordinate management meetings, and draw together task-force
teams. Organizations also introduce specific arenas with the sole purpose to learn. F, for example,
they implement information-sharing forums, as Huber (1996) suggesteds. Related to customer-
supplier relationships, cross-functional teams in customer visit programs have been suggested as a
mechanism for creating learning arenas (Cheung, 2005).
In theour field interviews for this study, we wanted to learn how dialogues were organized in different
customer-supplier relationships. The interviews revealed that most interactions between the two par-
ties were related to solving some sort of operational problem. T and thus, such interactions were ad-
dressed in operational kinds of meetings or simply by telephone. There We did encounter,were, how-
ever, many examples of face-to-face meetings, such as customer visits and trade shows. The parties
used these forums to build a more general understanding of each other and their respective operations.
Knowledge Integration
Organizations develop relationship-specific memories into which acquired relationship-specific
knowledge is integrated. Walsh and Ungson (1991) argued that organizational memory is both an in-
dividual- and an organizational-level construct. Individuals retain information based on their direct
experiences and observations, which are stored in their memories as cognition, beliefs, and values. At
the organizational level, memory is decentralized and manifests itself in several places throughout the
organization. This memory includes organizational beliefs, behavioral routines, and physical artifacts
(Cheung, 2005).
SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE The SC encompasses all activities associated with the flow of goods and information from sourcing of
raw materials through to the end user (Handfield &and Bechtel, 2002). The goals of manufacturers are
critical in determining SC goals and therefore delineating SCP constructs. According to Handfield et
al. (2000) and MacDuffie and Helper (1997), manufacturers wish to position themselves so they have
more flexibility, lower costs, and and reduced lead time in their SC processes and lower costs. When
the literature is researched, it is clearseen that the studies related to SCP measurement systems were
significantbecame important. At the rYüksel (2004), for example,esearches, it is emphasized that be-
cause of the traditional performance criteria based on financial criteria isare historical, it can not deter-
mine the strategic performance criteria such as customer satisfaction and, product quality. And, be-
cause traditional performance criteria and do notn‟t consider the effects of uncertainty, they are defi-
cient (Yüksel, 2004).
52 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
The first stage for whichto companies must design SCP measurement systems is SC effectiveness,
and they mustto find appropriate criteria to consider this effectiveness (Beamon, 1999). The criteria
used to evaluateion SCP are different from traditional performance criteria as well asnd also the com-
mon conceptionpoint at all criteria is continuous development and end user satisfaction.
The literature suggests that four “„competitive priorities”‟ are critical in the measuringement of SCP,
and includinge speed, quality, cost, and flexibility (Hult et al., 2007). Key parameters that have been
conceptualised and empirically tested in the context of SCP (supplier-–manufacturer relationships)
include reducing costs reduction, reliable delivery, reliabilityimproving quality improvement, con-
formingance to specifications, minding lead times and, time to market, and improving processes im-
provement (Panayides &and Lun, 2009).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
Conceptual Model Development The concept of SCM has come to re-ienforce the subject of logistics with a more comprehensive treat-
ment that spans the entire value system from suppliers to customers (Handfield &and Nichols, 2004).
The Council of Logistics Management has defined SCM as “ „„encompassing the planning and man-
agement of all activities involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion and all logistics manage-
ment activities. Importantly it also includes coordination and collaboration with channel partners,
which can be suppliers, intermediaries, third party service providers, and customers” (cite and pg.
xxx35-46)‟‟. Thise definition suggests that central in SCM is the managingement of close inter-firm
relationships, which are essential for achieving higher SCP. In fact, it has been specifically recog-
nized specifically that to create a competitive advantage, SCM must is increasingly emphasizeing inter
-organizational co-ordinations of activities (Panayides &and Lun, 2009). Because Since inter-
organizational relationships are central in industrial SCs, and knowledge sharing is an important part
of in the formingation of strong inter- organizational relationships, it is worthwhile to consider empiri-
cally potential organizational and performance consequences of knowledge sharing in SCs. This paper
thusIt is conceptualizesd in this paper that knowledge sharing within a SC for its preferred supplier
will have a positive impact on SCP that will also improve FP. In addition, uncertainty has a moderator
effect between IKS and SCP. This study‟se conceptual framework is depicted in Figure. 1.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework of This Study
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 53
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES This section aims toat developing theoretically justified hypotheses of how IKS in SCM may influ-
ence SCP and FP, and also how uncertainty plays a moderator role between IKS in SCM and FP.
The Effect of Inter-firm Knowledge Sharing in the Supply
Chain on Supply Chain Performance Fawcett et al. (2007) emphasized that firms‟ the knowledge sharing capabilities of firms are the deter-
mineant of SCP. ILi and Lin (2006), in their model, Li and Lin (2006) also imported that knowledge
sharing determines SCP. Zhou and Benton (2007), highlighted that knowledge sharing determines the
performance of how the SC isthe implementedation of SC. Crook et al. (2008) researched the effect of
knowledge sharing on SCP and represented that the role of knowledge sharing on the effectiveness of
SC is also very important. Petersen (1999), investigating the effect of the quality of information on the
performance of an SC knowledge sharing model has identified as an indicator of the supply chain‟s
performance of SC. MThere are many other studies in the literature that supports thate knowledge
sharing indicates the supply chain‟s performanceis an indicator of SCP. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1. Exchange of information is positively related to supply chain performance.
H2. Joint -sense- making is positively related to supply chain performance.
H3. Knowledge integration is positively related to supply chain performance.
The Effect of Supply Chain Performance on Firm Perform-
ance Effective SCM has become a potentially valuable way toof improveing organizational performance
and storeing competitive advantage in the SC. Li et al (2009) Iin their model, Li et al. (2009) struc-
tured the five dimensions of SCM practices and, concluded that athe high level of SCM practice in-
creased competitive advantage and FP.
Koh et al. (2007) surveyed the effect of SCM practices on FP and stated that SCM practices have a
significant and positive effect on the FP. Further, Bayraktar et al. (2009) in their research stated that
SC practices are positively related with FP and that SC practices have an effect on FP. Indeed, mThere
are many studies in the literature that supports the knowledge sharing is an indicator of SCP. Thus, we
hypothesize:
H4. Supply chain performance is positively related to firm performance.
RESEARCH METHOD
Sample and Data Collection Using a multiple-choice scale, the hypotheseis given above are tested. Answers were measured using a
5-point (1 = strongly agree, 5 = definitely disagree) 1-5 Likert-type scale, with between 1 and 51 =
strongly agree and 5 = definitely disagree). In the study survey, scales took place of the questions that
have beenare used previouslybefore in the developed Wwestern countries. The questions in this
study‟s scale were adopted from foreign publications and translated into Turkish. Then, the questions
translated into Turkish were compared with the original by a different expert who back translated the
questionsturning into English. At the end of this comparison, surveys were distributed to the appropri-
ate people after confirmingation with the original and translated questionsion.
According to 2010 data provided by thefrom Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, we have accessed to a
sample exist of 250 firms within the first 500 largest 500 firms. Surveys are sent to all firms in our
sample. Top- and middle- level managers were asked to fill in the surveys to representing the com-
pany. Tools were used such as e-mail and face-to-face interviews were used to collect in data collec-
tion. As a result, the return of 237 pieces surveys provided from 175 companies were returned. In this
sense, the percentage of returnresponse rate for the surveys wais 70% on a firms basis. Obtained sur-
veys were evaluated statistically. The data set was evaluated using ain the data processing program.
TIn order to test the relationships between variables.; factorFactor, reliability, correlation, and regres-
sion analysis were completed done.
54 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
Scale Development IKS is defined as an ongoing joint activity between the customer and the supplier organizations di-
rected at sharing information, making sense of information, and integrating acquired information into
a shared relationship-domain-specific memory to improve the range or likelihood of potential relation-
ship-domain--specific behavior. Previous studies by Anderson and Narus (1990), Heide and John
(1992), Moorman and Miner (1997), Noordewier, John, and Nevin (1990), and Slater and Narver
(1996) provided guidance in developing the items (Selnes &and Sallis, 2003).
This scale was borrowed directly from Selnes and Sallis (2003). It is a second order construct with
three dimensions: exchange of information, joint -sense- making and knowledge integration. Selnes
and Sallies (2003) developed the 17- item scale through a set of qualitative interviews with managers
in a context similar to this dissertation.
The SCP scale was adopted as key parameters that have been conceptualised and empirically tested in
the context of SCP (sSupplier-–manufacturer relationships). The scale, adopted from Cheung (2005) It
is included questions about reducing costs reduction, reliable delivery reliability, improving quality
improvement, conformingance to specifications from, minding lead times and, time to market, and
improving processes improvement, adopted from Cheung (2005).
To measure FP, we asked 16sixteen questions were asked. These were adopted from Ellinger et al.
(2002) and Akgün et al. (2007). BecauseSince a multi-company and multi-industry sample was used
(i.e., selectingon of a diverse set of industries improves the generalizability of the research findings to
a broader population), performance differences in the nature of firms were controlled by using relative
performance measures. FP was assessed relative to the achieving ement of organizational goals related
to profitability and growth in sales and market share.
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Measurement Model The correlation matrix and descriptive statistics indicate the variables‟ means to be below 5. The stan-
dard deviations for the variables range from 0.40 to 0.72 indicating a considerable amount of variation
in the responses. The correlations provide an initial test of the research hypotheses. The four hypothe-
ses are supported at the p < 0.01 level. The values of the correlations range from 0.187 to 0.467, with
the mean being 0.35 (see Ttable 2).
An effective measurement instrument should cover the content of the domain of each construct. Con-
tent validity is one of the basic requirements for a good measure. Content validity indicates that an
instrument‟s the measurement items in an instrument cover the major content of a construct. EThe
evaluatingon of content validity is a rational judgmental process not open to numerical evaluation
(Panayides &and Lun, 2009). To achieve content validity, it is essential to undertake a comprehensive
literature review, which facilitated the choice of well-established measurement scales thatwhich were
adopted and validated measurement items. According to the results of the factor analysis shown
Ttable 1, structural validity of the concepts is provided. b Because, the factor loadings wereare greater
than 0.50,0.50 and each variables is loaded only a single factor.
Reliability values indicate the degree to which operational measures are free from random error and
measure the construct in a consistent manner (Panayides &and Lun, 2009). Reliability is typically
assessed using Cronbach‟s alpha values. A scale is found to be reliable if the coefficient is 0.70 or
higher for confirmatory factor analysis (Panayides &and Lun, 2009). The reliabilities of the scales are
shown in Ttable 1. All values exceed the recommended cut- off point of 0.70.
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 55
Table 1. Standardized Measurement Coefficients
N n= 237; , Total explained variance is %73.85%
Exchange of
Information
Joint sense-
making
Knowledge
Integration
SC Perform-
ance
Firm Perform-
ance
ei5 .806
ei4 .738
ei2 .704
ei1 .620
jsm7 .804
jsm6 .721
jsm8 .514
ki17
ki13 .802
ki12 .804
ki14 .856
scp6 .845
scp8 .797
scp7 .772
scp3 .746
scp4 .710
scp5 .616
fp7 .900
fp12 .899
fp6 .854
fp13 .852
fp5 .834
fp16 .800
fp8 .725
fp2 .535
Cronbach‟s 0.77 0.71 0.79 0.88 0.95
alpha
56 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix
** Significant at p < 0.01
Regression Analysis To test the factors impacting SCP, we conducted linear regression analysis is conducted, using the
three influencing factors as independent variables and SCP as the dependent variable. AndIn addi-
tion, also to test impacting FP, linear regression analysis wasis conducted, using one influencing fac-
tor as an independent variable and FP as the dependent variable. The results are shown in Ttable 3 and
Ttable 4.
The first regression model shown in Ttable 3 is significant (F= 20,424, sig<0,01) and explained %
20% of the observed variation in the independent variable. As stated H1., H2., and H3, exchange of
information, joint -sense- making, and knowledge integration haves a positive and significant effect
on SCP. In other words, the first regression model supports H1., H2., and H3.. As are supported by the
first regression model. It can be seen also in Ttable 3, SCP is influenced positively by joint -sense-
making, exchange of information, and knowledge integration in SC partners. The higher the level of
joint -sense- making, exchange of information, and knowledge integration in SC partners, the higher
the level of SCP. The results shown in Ttable 3 thus indicate the importance of inter-organizational
relationships in SCP.
Table 3. The Regression Analysis of Supply Chain Performance
Significant at p < 0.01
The results show in Ttable 4, the second regression model, are alsois significant (F= 53,388, sig<0,01)
and explained %19% of the observed variation in the independentd variable. As stated H4., SCP has a
positive and significant effect on FP. In other words, the second regression model supports H4. is sup-
ported by the second regression model. AsIt can be seen also in T table 4, FP is influenced positively
by SCP. The findings add credence to the positive effects of IKS and identify IKS and SCP as antece-
dents to higher FP in the SC.
Variable Mean
Std. Devia-
tion
Exchange of
Information
Joint
sense-
making
Knowledge
Integration
Supply Chain
Performance
Firm Per-
formance
Exchange of
Information 4,08 0,44 1 Joint-sense
Making 3,46 0,72 0.187** 1 Knowledge
Integration 3,96 0,51 0.345** 0.467** 1 Supply Chain
Performance 3,90 0,40 0.246** 0.415** 0.307** 1 Firm Perform-
ance 3,74 0,55 -0.098 0.364** 0.086 0.430** 1
Independent Variables â Sig.
Join -sense-m Making 0,343 0,000
Exchange of Information 0,150 0,017
Knowledge Integration 0,095 0,170
Dependent Variable is Supply Chain Performance
R2=0.198 F=20.424
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 57
Table 4. The Regression Analysis of Firm Performance
Significant at p < 0.01
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Theoretical Contributions The literature has indicated that relationships between firms are an important unit of analysis for ex-
plaining firms‟ profit returns; that is, firm , i.e., performance (Panayides &and Lun, 2009). This paper
investigates empirically this relationship in the supply chainSC context by specifically focusing on
one of the most significant parameters of inter-firm knowledge sharingin IKS and assessing its impact
on SCP and FP. The empirical findings generally support the proposed model of the consequences of
IKS in terms of contributing to SCP and FP. The findings add credence to the relational paradigm,
which suggests the beneficial performance outcomes of IKS in particular. The findings also suggest
that IKS as a whole will facilitate a better understanding the SCP, which that will reflect needs for
service and processes in the SC more accurately. It must be emphasized that IKS contributes not only
to SCP, but also importantly to improving firm performanceement of the FP. The findings support the
notion that cooperation has a significant and positive effect on SCP (Morris &and Carter, 2005). Ex-
change of information appears to be one of thea key success factors in improving SCP, providing sup-
port for the study‟s H1. This finding supports previous work on the nature of information sharing in
business relationships. High levels of information sharing enable the partners to focus on the long-
term benefits of the relationship and ultimately SCP.
The results from testing the second research hypothesis (H2) indicate the value of joint -sense- making
in terms of improving SCP. Hence, developingment of knowledge sharing in supply chain relation-
shipsSCs will lead to beneficial performance out comes as identified in this study. The positive impact
of knowledge sharing on SCP was also identified by Zhou and Benton (2007), who highlighted that
knowledge sharing determines the performance of the implementing theation of SC. Similarly, Crook
et al. (2007) researched the effect of knowledge sharing on SCP and represent that the role of knowl-
edge sharing on the effectiveness of SC is very important. Hence, the hypothesized relationship and
the empirical findings in this study provide support to the theoretical notion of a positive association
between knowledge integration and SCP in the SCsupply chain performance. The results from testing
the third research hypothesis (H3) indicate the value of integrating knowledge integration in terms of
improving supply chain performanceSCP. SCP is an essential factor for overall firm performance FP,
providing support for hypothesis 4 (H4). In their model, Li et al. (2006), in their model structured the
five dimensions of SC management practices and , concluded that athe high level of SC management
practice increased competitive advantage and FP.
These are found to be critical issues in improving SCP. The results come to support previous empiri-
cal findings in the literature that innovation capability is among the most important determinants of
FP. THowever, this study breaks new ground, however, by empirically supporting a link between IKS
and SCP and FP.
Managerial Implications
The findings suggest that managerial, organizational, and inter-organizational capabilities can have an
effect supply chain performance on SCP. Manufacturers and their suppliers are should become well
Independent Variables  Sig.
Supply Chain Performance 0,430 0,000
Dependent Variable is Firm Performance
R2=0.185 F=53.388
Independent Variables â Sig.
Supply Chain Performance 0,430 0,000
Dependent Variable is Firm Performance
R²=0.185 F=53.388
58 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
informed of the potentially beneficial effects of IKS and SCP. By promoting information sharing and
facilitating organizational relationships, managers can enhance positional advantage bythrough
achieving better performance in their SC operations (Panayides &and Lun, 2009). This study has
found that IKS will positively influence SCP and indirectly FP. It is therefore important for managers
to understand the key parameters that give riseenhance to knowledge sharing with suppliers and moni-
tor how those factors can betheir improvedment. Manufacturers may invest resources in the en-
hancingement of exchange of information with suppliers to promote the developingment of IKS. The
partners should work together to identify areas for improvement areas and share information that will
facilitate timely and efficient supply chainSC operations. As this study found by this study, IKS can
positively influence SCP and FP. Manufacturers may be confident of high returns for promoting and
encouraging knowledge sharing between their partners. This can be achieved by firstly showing com-
mitment to sharing information from the top, encouraging managers and line employees to develop-
ment and implementation of new ideas and processes, and rewardinging creativity that can occur any-
where in the organization.
Limitations and Further Research
As with most empirical and survey-based research, the present study experienced several re are a few
limitations experienced during the present study. First, tThe sample was restricted to Turkish manu-
facturers. Whereas and while this serves to control for extraneous sources of variation, caution should
be used in extrapolating the results to other contexts.
Future research must address the issue of other consequences of IKS in general ands well as antece-
dents to SCP as well asand consider the impact on the economic performance of the firms
(manufacturer–supplier) in addition to SCP, which that was examined in this case. Bearing in mind
the strategic and practical importance of high performing SCs and the current level of empirical un-
derstanding, this is a prominent area for further research.
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 59
REFERENCES
Akgün A. E., Keskin H., Byrne J. C., Aren S., (2007), Emotional and learning capability and their
impact on product innovativeness and firm performance, Technovation 27, pg. 501-513.
Bayraktar E., Demirbag M., Koh S.C.L., Tatoglu E., Zaim H., (2009), A causal analysis of the impact
of information systems and supply chain management practices on operational performance: Evidence
from manufacturing SMEs in Turkey, Int. J. Production Economics, pg. 1-17.
Beamon B.M., (1999), Measuring Supply Chain Performance, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol: 19, No: 3, pg. 295-310.
Cheng J., Yeh C., Tu C., (2008), Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 13/4, pg. 283-295.
Cheung M., (2005). Inter-firm knowledge sharing and its effect on relationship value: A global supply
chain perspective, A dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, The University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, pg. 25-28.
Childhouse P, Towill D.R., (2003), Simplified material flow holds the key to supply chain integration.
Omega-Int. J. Manage. S. 31(1): pg. 17-27.
Crook T. R., Giunipero L., Reus H.T., Handfield R., William K.S., (2008), Antecedents and Out-
comes of Supply Chain Effectiveness: An Exploratory Investigation, Journal of Managerial Issues; 20,
2; ABI/INFORM Global, pg. 161.
Ellinger A.D., Ellinger A.E., Yang B., Howton S.W., (2002), The relationship between the learning
organization concept and firm‟s financial performance: an empirical assessment. Human Resource
Development Quarterly 13 (1), pg. 5-21.
Fawcett S. E., Osterhaus P., Magnan M.G., Brau J. C., Mccarter M. W., (2007), Information sharing
and supply chain performance: the role of connectivity and willingness, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 12/5, pg. 358-368.
Feldmann M., & Mrller S., (2003), An incentive scheme for true information providing in supply
chains. OMEGA , pg. 63-73.
Handfield R. B., Krause D. R., Scannell, T. V., Monczka, R. M., (2000), Avoid the Pitfalls in
Supplier Development. Sloan Management Review, 41: pg. 37-49.
Handfield R.B., Bechtel C., (2002), The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply
chain responsiveness, Industrial Marketing Management 31, pg. 367-382.
Handfield R.B., Nichols E.L., (2004), Key issues in global supply base management. Industrial Mar-
keting Management 33, pg. 29-35.
Hult G.T.M., Ketchen D.J., Arrfelt M., (2007), Strategic Supply Chain Management: Improving Per-
formance Through A Culture of Competitiveness and Knowledge Development, Strategic Manage-
ment Journal Strat. Mgmt. J., 28: pg. 1035-1052.
Koh S. C. L., Demirbag M., Byraktar E., Tatoglu E., and Zaim S., (2007), The impact of supply chain
management practices on performance of SMEs, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(1), pg.
103-124.
La Londe B.J., (1998), Supply chain evolution by the numbers. Supply Chain Management Review,
Vol.02, Iss.1; pg. 7-8.
Li G., Yang H., Sun L., Sohal A.S., (2009), The impact of IT implementation on supply chain integra-
tion and performance, Int. J. Production Economics 120, pg. 125-138.
Li S., Lin B., (2006), Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain manage-
ment, Decision Support Systems 42, pg. 1641-1656.
Lin F., Huang S., and Lin S., (2002), Effects of information sharing on supply chain performance in
electronic commerce, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(3): pg. 258.
MacDuffie, J.P. and Helper S., (1997), Creating Lean Suppliers: Diffusing Lean Production Through
the Supply Chain, California Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pg. 118-151.
60 | Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June
Monczka R.M., Petersen K.J., Handfıeld R.B., Ragatz G.L., (1998), Success factors in strategic sup-
plier alliances: The buying company perspective, Decision Science, 29, 3; ABI/INFORM Global, pg.
553-578.
Morris M., Carter C.R., (2005), Relationship marketing and supplier logistics performance: an
extension of the key mediating variables model, The Journal of Supply Chain Management 41, pg. 32-
43.
Panayides P.M., Venus Lun Y.H., (2009), The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain
performance, Int. J. Production Economics 122, pg. 35-46.
Petersen K. J., (1999), The effect of information quality on supply chain performance: An
interorganizational information system perspective, A dissertation submitted to Michigan State Uni-
versity in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Doctor of Philosophy, pg. 34-46.
Selnes F., Sallis J., (2003), Promoting Relationship Learning, Journal of Marketing, 67, pg. 80-95.
Stein T. and Sweat J., (1998), Killer supply chains, Informationweek, Vol. 708 No.9, pg. 36-46.
Yüksel H., (2004), Tedarik Zincirleri için Performans Ölçüm Sistemlerinin Tasarımı, Celal Bayar
Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F., Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 1, pg. 148-153.
Zhao X., Xie J., Zhang W.J., (2002), The impact of information sharing and ordering co ordination on
supply chain performance, Supply Chain Management; 2002; 7, 1, ABI INFORM Global, pg. 24-40.
Zhou H., Benton W.C., (2007), Supply chain practice and information sharing, Journal of Operations
Management 25, pg. 1348-1365.
Journal of Global Strategic Management | 09 | 2011, June | 61